104 Book Reviews / Aries 8 (2008) 91-112 Christoph Wagner, Das Bauhaus und die Esoterik: Johannes Itten, Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Bielefeld/Leipzig: Kerber Verlag 2005, 296 pp., ill. ISBN 3-938025-39-5 Th e Bauhaus has probably been the most influential design school in the twentieth century. During its short existence, from 1919 until 1933 when it was closed under nazi pressure, it was led by famous artists and architects: Walter Gropius, Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Hannes Meyer, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Oskar Schlemmer, among others. After its move to Dessau from Weimar in 1925, the Bauhaus became the fountainhead of function- alism—in German: Neue Sachlichkeit—in art, architecture and design. Its structure and its teachings were disseminated by students and teachers throughout the world through new institutions, thus firmly establishing the avant-garde reputation of the Bauhaus. Th e functionalist era of the Bauhaus has been cherished and cultivated in many studies, and particularly by the publications of the Bauhaus-Archiv in Berlin, which acquires and holds most of the archival material on the institute, its teachers and its students. Th us the functionalist aura of the institute as a whole was safeguarded and propagated. It was not until circa 1990 that in publications by the Bauhaus-Archiv itself it was mentioned, almost reluctantly, that 19th century occultism and other esoteric currents had been an important factor in the establishment of the school as such. Th is reluctance is understandable. Nazism and its connections with “racial theories” and other occultist ideas were a heavy historical burden not to be elaborated on too much, especially not in post-war Germany. But the consequences of this focus on the material, practical and rationalist side of functionalism in post-war art history has cut the Bauhaus loose from its original cultural context. Hence, today it is hardly known, whether among the public or among researchers, that the Bau- haus was infused with esotericism—and consequently, that esotericism has shaped our view of what is modern in a fundamental way. Th e exhibition catalogue Das Bauhaus und die Esoterik is the first publication to fill the historical gap—be it only in part. Th e project has grown out of the personal fascination of Christoph Wagner, lecturer at the Universität des Saarlandes in Saarbrücken, for the Bau- haus teacher Johannes Itten. He was the teacher of the Vorkurs, which meant that every student would pass through his classes in the first year. Itten is one of the few teachers whose belief in the occultist Mazdaznan theories has been readily acknowledged in art his- tory, but as he already left the Bauhaus in 1923, his occult beliefs came to be considered “harmless” to the rational-functionalist reception history of the institute. In this reception history, Itten’s departure thus symbolizes the transition from an “expressionist” to a “func- tionalist” Bauhaus. But is this historically correct? It is true that after its move to Dessau in 1925, the Bau- haus became more rationalist and functionalist in appearance. Th is was triggered by De Stijl, the Dutch avant-garde group around the abstract painter Piet Mondriaan and the dadaïst Th eo van Doesburg. In De Stijl, functionalism was already infused with—or more precisely, had evolved out of—theosophical thought. When the socially engaged “commu- nist” architect Hannes Meyer—who had been an avid follower of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of antroposophy—became director of the Bauhaus in 1928, the institute made its most marked shift from a “spiritual” and “biophilosophical” conception of design to a more “materialistic” and “scientific” one. But we should not be fooled by the outward appearance of art. Forms and structures are rarely, if ever, created within a cultural or social vacuum. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157005908X246742 Book Reviews / Aries 8 (2008) 91-112 105 Even post-war art and architectural criticism, which stressed the autonomy of art—and hence the “objectivity” of the Bauhaus style—should be seen within the cultural framework of that time, that is to say, one in which all references to esotericism were wilfully rejected. In 1991, the present reviewer published a book titled Bauhaus Lecture Notes, which pre- sented the lecture notes of Jan van der Linden (1907-1991). Together with his brother Kees, he was the only Dutch student of architecture at the institute. Th e introductory text to the lecture notes sketches the ideological foundations of the Bauhaus, based on then available bibliographical sources. Th is book was the first one to openly state (and attract criticism for it) that the Bauhaus ideal was firmly rooted in freemasonry and related occult- ist, reform and nationalistic-cultural movements. Th is mixture produced the concept of the Bauhütte, which laid the foundations for the Bauhaus organizational structure and curricu- lum. Th is concept and its importance for the founding of the Bauhaus is now discussed in more detail in Das Bauhaus und die Esoterik, on the basis of new research in primary sources. Th e book just referred to also hypothesized that esotericism had by no means disap- peared from the Bauhaus when the shift to functionalism took place, but that esoteric and occult ideas became absorbed into other artistic ideals, which in the course of time drew inspiration from new political movements or developments within science. Empiricism, biology, sociology, psychology, socialism and communism became part of avant-garde thought at the Bauhaus; but as elsewhere in Europe, they were mingled there with all kinds of esoteric world-views. A detailed analysis of the esoteric leanings of Bauhaus teachers and students was not the main focus of the Bauhaus Lecture Notes, which referred to them merely as a historical background to the lecture notes by Van der Linden and the atmosphere he personally encountered at the school. Das Bauhaus und die Esoterik now provides us with a scholarly foundation for understanding that climate, be it only within the visual arts. Th e book draws on source materials that either have become newly available, or were (purposely) overlooked in the archives. However, the book restricts itself mostly to the period 1919- 1925, and thus perpetuates the idea of a non-esoteric, functionalist post-1925 period. Moreover, the title suggests that Itten, Klee and Kandinsky are the main subjects. Since these artists are already known for their esoteric inclinations, this also perpetuates the accepted Bauhaus view. Nevertheless, the contents of this book sometimes prove illuminating also for the period beyond 1925. Th e discussion of Kandinsky’s library, for instance, finally proves his lifelong interest in esotericism. It shows also why, between 1930 and 1932, Jan van der Linden could openly discuss esotericism with Kandinsky over a cup of tea in his house, and why he was finally advised by Kandinsky to go to Dornach, after which he became an anthroposo- phist. However, for a broader understanding of the Bauhaus esoteric climate, the essays on Lothar Schreyer, Joost Schmidt, Sophie van Leer, Georg Muche and Karl Peter Röhl are historically more interesting, because these less well-known artists represent the broader dissemination of esotericism within the institute. Despite its obvious merits, the book has several drawbacks. First, as already mentioned, it focuses only on the visual arts. Over time, however, within the Bauhaus the visual arts came to be seen as merely supportive to the courses of architecture and design. As a result, the role of esotericism in Bauhaus architecture and design still remains hidden—and the .